Lecture on What is Theory and IR Theory PDF

Lecture on What is Theory and What is IR Theory Course: Theories of International Relations Fall 2024-25 University of Sharjah M. Moniruzzaman  What is Theory Theory is- A systematic reflection of phenomena, designed to explain them an...

Lecture on What is Theory and What is IR Theory Course: Theories of International Relations Fall 2024-25 University of Sharjah M. Moniruzzaman  What is Theory Theory is- A systematic reflection of phenomena, designed to explain them and to show how they are related to each other in a meaningful, intelligent pattern, instead of being merely random items of incoherence Exp: Human being is naturally selfish  What is Theory  It is a grand formal model with hypotheses and assumptions.  It is some form of simplifying devise that allows you to decide which facts matter and which do not. – A good analogy is with sunglasses with different coloured lenses;  Put on the red pair and the world looks red,  put on the blue pair & the world looks blue.  The world is not any different, it just looks different. Well so, with theories.  No single theory reliably explains the wide range of international politics  Theory in IR  The main purpose of theory in IR is to  Assess, explain and predict state behavior.  In other words, to know why states behave in one way or another.  Because all the states are obsessed with national security and national interest. This gives rise to competition.  As such it is difficult to know which things matter and which do not. – How, for example, would you explain 9/11, or the 2003 invasion of Iraq? – Why did Russia invade Ukraine? – Why did American & British leaders authorized the attack on Iraq?  There are very different answers to questions such as these and there seems no easy way of arriving at a definite answer to them.  Meta-Theory All theoretical positions are dependent upon particular assumptions about:  Ontology (theory of being: What is the world made of? What objects do we study?),  Epistemology (theory of knowledge: How do we come to have knowledge of the world?), and  Methodology (theory of methods: What methods do we use to unearth data and evidence?) On the basis of these assumptions, researchers may literally come to ‘see’ the world in different ways: Ontologically in terms of seeing different object domains, Epistemologically in terms of accepting or rejecting particular knowledge claims, and Methodologically in terms of choosing particular methods of study.  1. Idealists vs. Realists (after the WWI and II) The Idealists were driven by a desire to  Develop a set of institutions, procedures, and practices that could eradicate, or at least control, war in the international system.  They were motivated by the horrors of the WWI (1914-1918).  For the idealists, ignorance and lack of understanding was a primary source of international conflict.  The idealists believed progress was only possible if we could develop and use reason to control the irrational desires. Realists theory: 1. challenge the extent to which the knowledge produced by the idealists was scientific. 2. The idealists focuse their attention on “how the world ‘ought’ to be”, as opposed to dealing with “how the world is”. 3. It is crude power and force that rule the world/international relations  2. Behaviourists vs. Traditionalists (1960s) Behaviourists sought to define and refine systematic scientific methods of inquiry for the discipline of IR. They suggest that: 1. scientific knowledge emerges only with the collection of observable data. 2. anything that could not be rigorously measured and subject to testing was to be purged from the new ontology. Traditionalists argued that the core concepts of the discipline were simply not susceptible to the kind of rigid data collection procedures advocated by the Behaviourists. 1. The study of IR involves significant conceptual and interpretative judgements.  3. Inter-paradigmatic debate: Realism, Marxism, and Pluralism (1970s) In the mid-1970s three paradigms competed for theoretical dominance: - Realism, Marxism, and pluralism. The questions were: - how to compare them. - Which paradigm should the IR discipline adopt in order to move forward? Thomas Kuhn suggested that there was no answer; 1. paradigms were impossible to measure or compare. 2. Theory choice became largely a matter of taste.  4. Analytical Eclecticism The fourth debate, has centred on deep-seated disagreements about what the discipline should study and how it should be studied:  Explaining and Understanding,  Positivism and Postpositivism,  Rationalism and Reflectivism. 1. Explaining and Understanding  Understanding, for the advocates of understanding, social meanings, language, and beliefs are said to constitute the most important aspects of social existence. – Supporters of understanding adopt interpretive methods (qualitative, discursive, historical).  Explanatory theorists do not generally disagree with this claim; however, they do not see how such objects can be measured. – They privilege quantitative methods.  Beyond the Fourth debate: Feminism, Green and Islamic Theories Almost all approaches in IR might be considered to be scientific. There are always many ways in which to come to know the world. This does not mean that all views are equally valid, Every claim is open to challenge. This means that those concerned to challenge particular claims make clear the evidential basis on which the challenge is made.  Single or Combo? No single theory reliably explains the wide range of international politics But a particular theory is adopted to maintain internal consistency for argumentation